OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):215 W

EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

40%

5.4

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

10

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 62% of graphics cards
8.0

Value for money

Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

★Better than 97%
5.4

Technical score

Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

44%

3.9

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 78%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 69% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • evga-geforce-gtx-1080-ftw-hybrid
evga-geforce-gtx-1080-ftw-hybrid
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid

Based on 2 · 3

Reviewers complain about its fans and think it's overpriced for what it offers.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid

Technical score
Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

44%

3.9

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

5.4
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

8.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,517 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,517 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 76.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,827 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,827 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 79.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
12,083 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 12,083 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 80.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,628 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,628 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 71.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
8.87 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 8.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 76.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5X
This graphics card uses GDDR5X memory, which is older than on 83.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
320.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 320.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 66.4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
10,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 10,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 83.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
215 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 215 W, which is lower than that of 49.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
215 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 215 W under peak load, which is lower than 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
215 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 215 W, which is lower than that of 53.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
215 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 129x 40 mm
Length
266.7 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 266.7 mm long, which is shorter than 62.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
128.63 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 128.63 mm tall, which is taller than 57.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,360 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,360 g, which is heavier than 68% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of Graphics cards.
Show more

EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 4.73x cheaper
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £520).
    £110 vs £520
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 4.73x cheaper
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £520).
    £110 vs £520
  • 7.3% better value for money
    EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.96 vs 7.4).
    7.96 vs 7.41
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • Uses hybrid cooling
    This graphics card uses hybrid cooling, the average graphics card does not.
  • 21 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (46 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    46 °C vs 67 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 15.5 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (266.7 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    266.7 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 25.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,860 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,860 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 20 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (20 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    20 vs 40
  • 25.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,860 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,860 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 31.7% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (110.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    110.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 60.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    8.87 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 27.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (275.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    275.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 46.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (12,083 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    12,083 points vs 22,638 points
  • 80% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,827 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,827 points vs 9,148 points
  • 10.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,721 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,721 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 42.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,517 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,517 points vs 14,779 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 99.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 47.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 28.5% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,251 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,251 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 28.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (320.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    320.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 68.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (7,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    7,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 30 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (30 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    30 dB vs 0 dB

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
LarsenTech
≈ estimated
12/10/2017
Hands-on review · 1440p benchmarks and fan swap
Verdict
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid performs as hoped at 1440p, though its price is hard to justify right now.
9.0
JayzTwoCents
≈ estimated
18/08/2016
Hands-on review · cooling, fan swap and RGB
Verdict
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid keeps cooling well under control, a fan upgrade helps more, and the premium price is the buyer's call.
8.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
30/08/2016
Comparison review · thermals, overclocking and frame rates
Verdict
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid has a better board and more overclock headroom than the Sea Hawk X at a lower price, making it the favoured pick.
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
07/10/2016
Lab review · AIO liquid cooling
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid pairs a built-in liquid cooler with a 10-phase FTW board that suits overclockers, but its radiator makes it bulky.
8.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
30/08/2016
Thermal review · Liquid cooling
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid is a factory version of a DIY liquid-cooled GTX 1080 with a 10-phase power design, though its VRM fan gets limited airflow.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid

  • Exceptional thermal management, often maintaining temperatures below 55°C even under heavy gaming loads
  • Incredibly quiet operation due to the integrated All-in-One (AIO) liquid cooling system
  • High stable overclocking potential, with some users achieving clocks as high as 2150 MHz
  • Custom FTW PCB featuring a 10+2 power phase and dual BIOS for enhanced stability and enthusiast features
  • Aesthetically pleasing design with customisable RGB LED lighting via Precision X software
  • Outperforms the Nvidia Founders Edition at various resolutions with better acoustics

What customers don't like about EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid

  • Higher initial price point compared to standard air-cooled GTX 1080 models
  • Pump noise or potential failure risks inherent to closed-loop liquid cooling systems over time
  • Initial thermal reports for some early units showed higher-than-expected temperatures for VRAM/VRMs
  • Memory overclocking gains on some samples were marginal or resulted in performance drops compared to core overclocking
  • The 120mm radiator and tubing require additional space and specific mounting considerations in the PC case

Verdict

The EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid is a high-performance graphics card featuring the Pascal architecture with 2560 CUDA cores, 8GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, and an aggressive factory overclock with a 1721 MHz base and 1860 MHz boost clock. Its defining characteristic is a self-contained All-In-One (AIO) liquid cooling system that maintains load temperatures in the low 40°C to 50°C range, far below standard air-cooled models. Main pros include its exceptional thermal efficiency, near-silent operation under heavy load, 10+2 power phase design for stable overclocking, and customisable RGB lighting. However, its primary cons are the additional space required for the 120mm radiator/fan assembly, a higher price point compared to standard air-cooled 1080s, and the lack of modern features like DLSS found in newer generations.

Compare EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW Hybrid and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found